Negligent infliction of emotional distress is unintentionally causing great emotional distress to someone, potentially leading to liability for damages. It is not universally accepted as a valid claim in civil trials, and intent is easier to prove. The line between negligence and intent can be difficult to draw, but courts can use responsible or illegal behavior that unintentionally causes emotional harm as a guide. Juries can help determine the merits of each case.
Careless infliction of emotional distress is a tricky legal term that needs to be deciphered. The term “negligent infliction” means to inflict or intentionally cause or inflict an accident. Emotional distress is such great distress, past or present, that it can be something for which damages can be recovered. Overall the term suggests that a person has unintentionally caused great emotional distress to someone else, and this was so great that the person could be liable for damages.
Not all regions will accept negligent infliction of emotional distress as an appropriate claim in civil trials. It is much clearer in most regions when there is an intent to create emotional distress. A company that maliciously decides to place pornographic films in children’s film containers could be sued for significant amounts of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and could be charged with sex crimes.
The question that arises then is what would happen if this happened accidentally. Is the company intentionally trying to expose children to material that could produce distressing moments, or has it simply been negligent, foolish, and not as responsible as it should have been? Each jurisdiction should determine tort or negligence and then further decide under its laws whether negligent infliction of emotional distress is valid.
Part of the reason why so many regions have a hard time considering negligent infliction of emotional distress as a viable charge is because it becomes very difficult to know where any sort of lines can be drawn. Maybe the company that put the wrong movies in the wrong cases should be held accountable because it’s a business, but what if one person accidentally slips on a rock outside, hits their head on the ground, starts bleeding and terrifies their neighbor’s twos – years? It’s not intended to cause emotional distress, but if the charge were allowed, theoretically the two-year-old’s parents could sue the neighbor for falling.
Conversely, it is argued that juries could be especially helpful in determining the merits of any particular case. Most juries or judges would probably decide that the parents didn’t have a good case against the person who fell. However, there is that gray area where a case might have some merits and some flaws, and where it might be more difficult to pinpoint the appropriate course.
The word negligent needs to be understood more thoroughly as it can mean more than accidental. It can mean the result of behavior that, while unintentional, is still irresponsible or perhaps a violation of the law. What if the man terrorized the two-year-old by picking up an illegal weapon and shooting himself in the boy’s arm, not realizing the boy was there? Alternatively, an unintentional car accident caused by a moving violation causes terrible mental distress to the passenger. By limiting the word negligent to accidental, but somehow referring to responsible or outright violations of the law that unintentionally hurt others emotionally, courts can have a better idea of when to accept this claim as valid.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
